Heated Hoax - How The Global Warming Issue Got Its Start

Updated on July 21, 2012

Margaret Thatcher

Sir Crispin Tickell

When Margaret Thatcher
became Britain's Prime Minister in 1979, her only experience in
government had been as Education Secretary in the Heath
administration before it collapsed in 1974. The only notable feat
she had accomplished was winning the nickname “Milk Snatcher
Thatcher” due to her having removed the distribution of milk to
school children. Being the first female leader of a major western
government, it was imperative that she be taken seriously by the
leaders of other countries.

Enter Crispin Tickell, an
Ambassador to the UN who was an ardent environmentalist. His 1977
book “Climatic Change and World Affairs” contended that mandatory
international methods for pollution control would eventually be
necessary. Though he, himself, had no scientific background, he
suggested to Ms. Thatcher that she make use of her degree in
chemistry. He pointed out that few international statesmen are
scientifically literate, and so if she were to present a “scientific
issue” that could be turned into an international issue of
significance, she could easily procure a prominent role for herself,
winning her the desired credibility for her views in other world
affairs. It was Crispin Tickell's idea to campaign about global
warming at each summit meeting. She did as suggested and the tactic
was successful. The UK became the prime promoter of the global
warming issue, with her at its head.

While finding the question
of global warming to be scientifically dubious, other politicians
were quick to see the positive economic ramifications it could
produce. The USA was the world's most powerful economy and the most
intensive user of energy. They realized that by adopting “carbon
taxes” and other universal industrial activity reductions, they
could gain economic benefit over the US. And so the hoax was born.

The fear of human induced
global warming has existed since the 1880's. At that time the belief
was based on an vague theory that burning fossil fuels would increase
CO2 in the air which would
enhance the greenhouse effect. Prior to the 1980's, this hypothesis
was regarded more as a curiosity than a scientifically based valid
theory. Nineteenth century calculations had indicated the mean
global temperature would rise more than 1°C
by 1940. That never happened.

Britain reduced their coal industry
citing the CO2
emissions as a valid excuse to make a switch to a higher dependency
on nuclear power. The global warming and
CO2
emissions provided another excuse for the switch. Britain's
Conservative Party needed a large nuclear processing facility in
order for the UK to upgrade their nuclear weapons program to include
Trident missiles and submarines. The opposing Labor Party was
against the plans. The recent incident at Three Mile Island in
Pennsylvania, USA, had damaged public confidence in nuclear
technology. The case wasn't helped when privatization of the UK's
electricity industry proved nuclear generated electricity cost four
times as much as that of the coal-fired variety. Global warming was
the only excuse left for justifying the unpopular nuclear power
facilities she really wanted for weapons.

She
instigated the establishment of the Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research, encouraging the science and engineering
research councils to place priority on funding research related to
climate. Today, the Hadley Centre is the operating agency for the
IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific working
group.

Funding
for scientific studies is provided mostly by governments and
organization with a stake in the type of research being funded.
Since global warming had been pushed to the top of the priority list,
any case for funding support usually included references to global
warming if at all possible. There are quite a bit of scientific areas
that can be conducted under the ruse of a relationship with global
warming. Study fields of biology, meteorology, computer science,
physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering,
process engineering, forestry, and astronomy have all been funded
based on some suggested link to the global warming question.

Global Warming Swindle

Scientists are loath to “bite the
hand that feeds them” when cornered on the question of global
warming. Peer pressure serves to deter them from damaging potential
sources of research funds. No one wanted to be the first to dispel
the rumors by telling the truth for fear of committing professional
suicide. However, in 1992 Greenpeace International conducted a
survey of the world's leading 400 climatologists, hoping to publicize
the results prior to the Rio Summit. In response to the survey, only
15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global
warming. Three years later, the Leipzig Declaration disputed the
IPCC assertions regarding man-made global warming, with over 1,500
signatures of scientists from all over the globe.

Clearly then, the issue of global
warming isn't a scientific one, but rather that of politics.
Governments have a variety of reasons for maintaining an interest in
an issue as unsubstantiated as this, however, in this instance, all
were motivated by economic policies. Threat of world-wide disaster
makes for good copy that sells newspapers and gains viewers for
television stations. Increased scientific publications coupled with
the political activities and statements served to imbue a certain
kind of authority for global warming.

To keep the story attracting attention,
the media began to declare threats of the horrible proportions such
as massive flooding due to a polar ice meltdown, and the extinction
of polar bears as they continued to lose their habitat. The public
relies on the media for information. The politicians respond to the
public in efforts to curry and maintain the public's support.
Environmentalists joined the melee. Almost any environmental issue
can be linked to global warming if enough effort is generated. The
issue came to feed on itself, relying on the recycling of
information, actions and studies to continue to loop around.

Man-made global warming is no longer an issue with imaginary threats. But the real threats are not of melting ice and dying breeds of animals. The risks are now in the form of the proposed governmental policies to inhibit the CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was initially adopted in December 1997 and officially entered into force in 2005. Under the protocol, 37 countries committed themselves to a reduction of greenhouse gases.

Although there is little evidence that isn't questionable, in support of the global warming theory, the effects of the constraints will cause very real and severe economic damage. All industrial and economic growth requires an abundance of energy. Reduced energy supplies serve to reduce economic activity. The Kyoto protocol has called for a 7% US reduction in CO2 by 2012. This will cause even more industries to leave the United States in favor of those countries where emission constraints are not enforced or do not exist at all. In a study commissioned by the German government, the estimated cost to that country will be about $250 billion and the loss of more than 125,000 jobs. The only choice to be had is either the mandated reductions in carbon emissions, or paying a tax on the amount of carbon to the UN....aka..New World Order Police Force.

So why is there a world wide race to systematically stymie economic growth, to invite an epidemic of poverty, to reduce industrial and technological progress if there is no such thing as global warming? Three words...New...World...Order. And in case anyone is wondering....yes, the Rothschild name is to be found among those campaigning for a world tax for carbon.

If you found this information helpful, please pass it on by clicking the Tweet, Like, or +1 button provided at the top of the page.

9/11: The New Pearl Harbor?This year marks 10 years since terror proved it had grown roots in American soil. Much has been written and rewritten about the events of 9/11, as well as some of the blunders in handling a growing concern with terrorism. The author gives a chronolog

More by this Author

This is the second in a series of articles detailing the discovery, the military use, the legal battles faced by victims, and the massive ongoing cover-up of the deadly chemical manufactured by Monsanto, Agent Orange. ...

Our insistence on being politically correct has led us down the merry path extreme Islamists have always intended, that of becoming a country divided on how we should be treating Muslims and their religion. There can be...

If you love ice cream, you may be shocked to learn what goes into the commercially made product. Chemicals used as paint solvents, in printing inks and antifreeze, as well as soaps and detergents. Here's a list of...

Comments 14 comments

Thank you. Just another episode of governments thinking the people they are supposed to be serving, are too stupid to understand what's really going on.

lobonorth 5 years ago

I voted up because the article is well written and shows a great deal of intelligence although I believe the author is quite wrong.

There is obvious climate change and the argument is about how much our activities account for the change.

The decline of US economic power in this century has a lot more to do with misguided policies both at home and overseas than the price of energy.

The US is still a great nation and has the ability to make its way in this century if it showed the will rather than blame energy and anyone and everything for its ills.

Japan had a successful economy for many decades although having no oil or coal.

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Hey, thanks for reading. I won't say there is NO climate change, but from those scientists on the other side of Global Warming, supposedly the temperatures haven't risen anymore than the same percentage that's been going on as a natural earth-sun cycle. In addition, we have to keep in mind that right now, sun spots are extremely active, something that doesn't happen every century. According to some scientists, we can account for many of the climate extremes based on the havoc sun spot activity can cause.

As for Japan: They have been using electric as their main source of energy for a long time now, but it didn't happen over night, and it's use was simply incorporated at the same rate as their economy expanded or grew. Our problem will be in making drastic reductions so quickly. There will be loss of jobs which will not be easily replaced in the short span of time allotted. That is the main concern. We would have to find a way to provide new kinds of jobs to replace the ones lost. We're already having a problem with creating enough jobs for all those without.

lobonorth 5 years ago

Germany, who you mention as paying particular attention to the issue of increased costs associated with the belief in climate change, have just announced the closing of their nuclear power stations. They are a resourceful people and will find ways of creating new jobs.

It seems to me reasonable to demand imported goods to meet some sort of criteria relating to their production such as not being a product of child labor and a number of other requirements that take away many unfair advantages.

Creating more and more favorable climates for business might create a lot of low paying jobs but that is not what is usually part of the American dream.

If there is climate change, the cost of not doing anything will be trillions of dollars. Insurance companies are not known for being big gamblers and they have watched payouts mount over the last decade because of factors associated with climate that some call climate change. They seem to all believe they are looking at a trend. Watch the changes in your home insurance policy as well as the costs rise over the next decade to see if the predictions of change are correct or not.

Climate change would bring about just the type of conditions that would explain a lot of recent weather in the US and elsewhere.

A hundred years ago people would have thought you mad if you suggested it was possible to over-fish the oceans of the world. We accept we can affect the oceans why is it so hard to accept we can impact the rest of the planet including climate?

At some point we have to accept Occam's razor.

What evidence would convince you that man's activity has and is effecting climate? It is genuinely puzzling to know what kind of scientific evidence is required by doubters since there is so much agreement in the scientific community.

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

You've raised some very good points, which, yes, they will likely happen if global warming does turn out to be a sure thing. You ask what it will take to convince me that man's activities are affecting the climate. I don't think there is anything the average person could say at this point which would make me a believer to the extent it's being put out there.

Scientists are about equally divided on the topic, so both sides could present cases for and against and it sort of comes up a stalemate. What turns me against considering it's even slightly as serious as presented, is the fact that I've been around for far too long and witnessed the many underhanded, money grabbing behaviors of a government that is corrupt and feeding off the people it is supposed to be representing. The one tactic that can be seen to be repeated over and over again is the employment of fear.

I would suggest that those who want to take the information provided by scientists as gospel, to do some research. Discover where each one is employed, who funds their research, from where does the money come? While I haven't looked into each and every one, the majority of these learned men are receiving government money to continue their research. Of the scientists who are naysayers, none are receiving government funding. Wouldn't you think that our government would want to know the truth? Why wouldn't they fund both types of research in order to discover if we really have something to be worried about? Follow the money and you'll find the agenda.

Now, that being said, I do believe that man can have both positive and adverse affects on his environment. There is some Native American tradition still surviving in my blood, though it's been diluted to 1/8. I also am of a spiritual bent which says all things are connected. I'm not unconcerned with the state of our world, I just won't be terrorized by imbalanced science.

lobonorth 5 years ago

Hi Terri:

The statement that scientists are about equally divided on the topic is demonstrably just not correct and is one of those myths that make scientists scratch their heads at both the medias poor job of reporting the facts and hence the general ignorance. Well over 90% of scientists working in the field are in broad agreement over climate change. Scientists who are largely employed by oil and coal interests are mostly the ones who disagree. It seems to me this information is readily available. As is often the case I am relying on my memory and a check should readily establish the exact ratio of how scientists line up in the debate but I am fairly sure it was closer to the ninety five per cent mark rather than the ninety!

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Hey lobonorth, Thanks for the bit about the 90%. I'll look into that. I've been busy searching through my files looking for the ones that that said they were equally divided.(I spent all day repairing my laptop) :O

hazelbrown 5 years ago from Central PA

"Funding for scientific studies is provided mostly by governments and organization with a stake in the type of research being funded." Maybe, but the flip side is also true - the people who want the US to continue relying on oil are also the people who are making billions by selling oil.

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

hazelbrown,

you are absolutely correct about the funding, as well as those wanting a continuance of relying on oil. My problem with the whole global warming issue, is the use of fear tactics. There are many other ways to produce energy such as water and wind. Right now it's claimed that those ways aren't as cost effective. For homeowners, it takes about 8 years for the cost of installing a renewable energy system, to start paying off. That's ridiculous. The parts are so expensive and depending on the type, they will wear out in roughly 20 years. Our government has done a few things with credits over the last few years, but there is much more that could be done to help people make the switch. I believe in most cases, people simply can't afford the initial cost.

riversedge 4 years ago from Delaware River Valley

I'm afraid I have to differ: global warming is not a myth.

Terri Meredith 4 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

You're free to differ in your opinion of global warming. As for me, I'm still waiting for the tug of war to begin showing some strength on one side or the other. So far, it would seem both sides of the issue keep coming up with equally valid claims regarding studies and scientific data. I'm not a fan of anything that threatens the environment, but I certainly need to see some weighted arguments that tip the scales before I'm willing to lean one way or another. Thanks for commenting.

Nick Hanlon 4 years ago from Chiang Mai

The global warming issue has passed it's peak.It died in Copenhagen and will continue to slide away.the logic goes like this;China does not care,India does not care and America won't care once it has a republican president.Why stick your neck out?

Terri Meredith 4 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Hi Nick, it may be true the issue has peaked, but it certainly hasn't begun to decline. There are simply too many new stories being broadcast, documentaries being filmed, and articles being written to believe it's on the wane. You say China and India don't care and neither will the US eventually. Why? The governments of these countries may not care but there are millions of individuals who DO. For me, the issue isn't really about global warming. I believe it's about money and always has been. In this country, oil is king, but it's king because the population is forced to rely on it. Any invention designed to reduce dependence while encouraging use of other forms of energy is always squashed into oblivion. As I said in an earlier comment, there's no valid reason for the high cost of installing a renewable energy system in a home. The parts are ridiculously expensive when the technology is so simple.

What do you mean by your last question, "Why stick your neck out?" Whose neck?